Category: Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

2024:INSC:292 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,…

– The Appellant claimed ‘Mochi’ caste, which was validated and granted by the Scrutiny Committee – The Respondents’ argument that a reserved category in one state cannot be granted reservation in another state has no relevance in this case, as the Appellant’s claim was based on her forefathers’ genealogical caste history – The Scrutiny Committee verified the Appellant’s claim as applicable to Maharashtra – Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the instant appeals stand allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari…

The suit raises substantial constitutional questions regarding the interpretation of Article 131 and the extent of a state’s right to borrow under Article 293 – The court finds the issues raised require interpretation by a larger bench and refers the matter accordingly – The interim injunction sought by Kerala is denied, with the court stating that the observations made are for the limited purpose of this decision and do not affect the final outcome of the suit.

(2024) INSC 253 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KERALA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, J. )…

State Bank of India (SBI) was directed to disclose details of Electoral Bonds purchased and redeemed, including purchaser names and bond denominations – The Election Commission of India (ECI) was ordered to publish the disclosed information on its website by a specific deadline – SBI sought an extension for compliance, which was denied, and the Court warned of contempt proceedings if the directions were not followed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjiv…

Allegations were based on WhatsApp status messages that were considered to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, specifically regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and Independence Day of Pakistan – The Court analyzed the intention behind the messages, referencing past judgments and the importance of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – The Court quashed the FIR, stating that the appellant’s messages were an expression of protest within his rights, and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED AHMAD HAJAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

Bribery: Not protected by parliamentary privilege, as it is not in respect of anything said or any vote given by a member, and it is a criminal offence that does not arise out of the exercise of legislative functions Courts and House: Exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery, as the House can take disciplinary action to restore its dignity, while the courts can prosecute the offenders under the criminal law The majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) did not consider the evolution of law in the US and relied solely on the dissenting opinion in United States v. Brewster to conclude that members of Parliament in India are immune from prosecution for bribery under Article 105(2) of the Constitution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 7 JUDGE BENCH SITA SOREN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, Pamidighantam…

Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr (2002) 4 SCC 388 – This landmark case established the concept of curative petitions and the requirements for filing them – We do not think any case has been made out by the appellant for invoking the curative jurisdiction to take relook into the appellants case. Hence, we refrain from entertaining the curative petitions. We do not think any purpose would be served in sending the matter back to the Chamber Judge for instructions in the given circumstances.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Refund of excess price paid over the notified price in e-auction – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed the respondent to pay the refund amount with interest @ 12% per annum for the relevant periods, within two months, failing which the officers concerned would be personally liable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS PVT. LTD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…

You missed